MORAL DIMENSIONS OF PROPERTY IN ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT (towards a justification of a “proprietary” ecology) (original) (raw)

2021, Prof Marin Drinov Publishing House of BAS

Living organisms and abiotic factors related to them that form together single ecosystems must be owned while respecting their moral significance. The moral significance of the “non-human life” and of “non-living nature” can be associated both with satisfying some specific human interests (individuals, communities, generations) and with respecting the inherent value of nature (living organisms, biological species, ecosystems, the Earth and the Outer Space). The value of life (biocentrism) must be kept not only and solely by means of universal protection of human embodiment (anthropocentrism) but also by ensuring the sustainable development of ecosystems (ecocentrism). And although it is beyond any doubt that human remains the main axis that every regulation of the possible forms of possession turns around it should be acknowledged that property is a sufficiently flexible tool by which a number of ecologically significant biocentric and ecocentric components can be included into the “human-nature” relation. Compared to the traditional scope of property as a pool of the three classical powers: possession, use and disposal, ownership of nature is subject to restrictions with clearly outlined moral dimensions. It is precisely the ethical considerations that restrict ownership of living organisms and natural resources as in some cases the imposed restrictions considerably reduce the scope of ownership by transforming it into a possibility for contemplation (“aesthetic” property – for example: the ownership of a landmark landscape-thing), into a means of protection (“defensive” property – for example: the ownership of a nature reserve being kept in its natural state) and even into an obligation to take certain care (“husbandry-like” property – for example: the ownership of the mineral resources of huge economic and ecological value). The impact of morality on ownership leads to changes in latter’s essence: it starts to behave not merely as limited power (subjective right) but also as a responsibility, as an obligation. This is particularly true when ownership is placed in an ecological context. The dynamics of life (the question concerning the natural cycles and climate) and peculiarities of living organisms (the question concerning their genetic uniqueness, biological sensitivity and presumed intelligence) require the establishment and application of a system of different property models which should be used as formats for interaction between people (humans/mankind) and their surrounding world (the Earth/Outer Space). In this text “property” will mean any claim to ownership made both with respect to the most commonly discussed forms of biological life (plants and animals) and also to the very boundary of life (viruses and microscopic life, including extraterrestrial life). Property over abiotic factors that make possible the existence of life is considerably more “traditional” but also tied to a number of new challenges. Owning them has its own moral dimensions both when it comes to the Earth’s natural resources and when the celestial bodies and asteroids in the Outer Space are the object of claims. Regulation of the relations between man and nature by modeling the link between life and property in ecological context is possible thanks to ethics. It is precisely in the field of ecological ethics that the values upheld by man via the tools of property should be revealed. This will direct juridical regulations towards new models of possession of nature that take into account its moral significance. On the boundary between the bioethics and the ethics of natural resources one can sketch the outlines of an ethics committed to ecology in which the questions about the value of life are placed into the broader context of the ecosystems of the earth and even of extraterrestrial outer spaces. One of the things that bring together the natural components that fall within that broader ecological context is the circumstances that it is in the field of human possession. Nature, whether living or not, is possessed by humans and the legal entities established by them, thus rendering the issue of property and its moral dimensions a key one for every ecology. The existence of a system of moral views in the field of the so-called “proprietary ecology” – an ecology operating with the concept of property - could be the basis for establishing and applying specialized models of property integrated into a long-term policy of the state. Such an approach has the power to protect the nature in advance, thus preventing the necessity of implementing “emergency governance” in the difficult times of environmental crises that most likely lie in store for mankind. I believe this study – with its specific focus on the moral dimensions of property in ecology – has its share of contribution precisely to the attainment of that task which, although it remains theoretical in essence, can have numerous and important practical and applied consequences.